Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: EVO tests the Subaru BRZ . . .
Dieselstation Car Forums > Parking Lot > The Car Garage
Bjorn


They say the engine is nasty (needs more torque, and has to rev beyond 5,000 RPM for fun to be had) and that you need to cane it to dangerous levels in order to access the chassis' potential; which is contrary to what early reports were saying.

They also say it's too expensive for what it is, citing the cheaper Miata, same priced Megane 265 cup and slightly more expensive 370Z as better options.

What do you think? Have you heard similar things from other publications?

(I'd share the article, but EVO has a paywall)

clarkma5
Everyone loved it except the EVO video review I watched said that the engine made a disappointing sound, performed respectably otherwise, and everything else was great.

I've heard it in several videos and while it's hard to tell from recorded audio quality, generally it sounds like other 4 cylinders that you'd find in competing cars. Sure it's disappointing that they didn't go for a 4-in-1 header that made it sound like a bugeye WRX; I'm wondering if the aftermarket will fix that soon and/or if Subaru/Toyota will change that in one of its refreshes (the engineers claim that the cars will get a mechanical tweaking every model year GT-R-style).

Also how much of that is expectations? I mean, the spec sheets say 200 HP, 151 ft.-lbs. of torque, naturally aspirated and 2700 pounds. To me that says "quick but not fast and needs to be wound out for its best". Dyno tests show that for a 100 HP/liter 2.0 it's got a pretty broad torque band but you can only get so much out of that type of engine.
speedyK
QUOTE(clarkma5 @ May 4 2012, 12:31 AM) *
Also how much of that is expectations? I mean, the spec sheets say 200 HP, 151 ft.-lbs. of torque, naturally aspirated and 2700 pounds. To me that says "quick but not fast and needs to be wound out for its best". Dyno tests show that for a 100 HP/liter 2.0 it's got a pretty broad torque band but you can only get so much out of that type of engine.

Interestingly, the spec is almost identical to my fwd Clio RS 200:

Both have 200 hp, 4 cyl, normally aspirated engines. The Clio has 215Nm torque, the BRZ has 205Nm. The Clio weighs 1281kg, the BRZ 1280kg.

The Clio has sensational Brembo brakes and I can hardly believe that the BRZ is more rewarding to drive despite its rwd configuration.

In contrast to their luke warm opinion of the BRZ, Evo rated the Clio 5th best driver's car in the world:

Evo COTY 2009

"It’s a car that refuses to be fazed, continuing to cover the ground at an undiminished lick while maintaining a beautifully judged balance between sheer speed across the ground and throttle-induced entertainment. It has a lithe, sinewy athleticism that manages to carry seemingly implausible speed into and out of corners without wasting energy but, if you want to play games with the throttle, the Cup will oblige with just the right degree of rear-end mobility." cool.gif

I tried the BRZ's twin, the FT-86, in GT5. It wasn't enough to convince me to try a real one biggrin.gif
Bjorn
I think Clark makes a good point about hype.

The BRZ/GT-86 have been touted as revolutionary cars that will redefine the way we think about sports cars.

First off, I wonder if this is an unrealistic goal in Europe, where the affordable hot hatch is alive and well. Perhaps cheap-fun-car starved North Americans will react differently.

Second, I have little trust for automotive journalists and their objectivity. To the average consumer, to whom driving every fun car on sale is not just another day at the office, the BRZ/GT-86 might be a revolution.

Personally, having owned a light, simple and relativity underpowered car (my FB RX-7s), I'm excited for the return of this kind of car to our shores.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.